James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

151 Tav lor , E. J . ... o» f 4 1 Inns. ... 9 Taylor, P. ... 4 4 4 • 4 0 0 4 0 10 Terry, F. W. ... ••• 4 4 4 # 4 4 4 0 4 9 Tester, w . • • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 • SO Thorn ton , Rev. R . r.r. 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 # 18 Thorn ton , A. J. t # 4 fc 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Thorn ton , C. I. 0 4 4 4 ) i 4 • 4 4 0 # 0 9 0 0 4 0 10 Topham , H. G .... #0 •• 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 Townsend , If. ... % # 1 * 4 4 4 1 cu ' •*. • 4 0 r 0 4 0 16 Trask, W. ••• 0 • b f * 4 4 # 9 Turner, J . A. ... 4 4 4 X r , •.. i 4 # 0 4 0 0 0 0 14 trivett, C t . A • 4 4 4 9 •.» 0 4 0 • 4 4 46 V ernon , G. F . ... 9 •. .. IV't ^ 4 # 4 f ’41 0 f•’ m 4 4 4 82 Walker, G. G; ...* V.• k * t f • 1#•• 0 1 •0 0 s • 18 Walker, I . D . ... • t 4 4 0 .*• T # 4 4 4 27 , Walker, J . G. ... ••r J 4 0 4 ##% 0 4 0 12 Watson, A . • 4 4 * 1 i > 4 0 4 0 4 A 000 4 1 4 4 # 4 0 28 AVebbe, A . J. ... 0• 1 4 1 t ' 4 4 4 r 4 4 0 0 0 0 22 W elman , F . T . ... ••• 0 0 0 # 4 0 13 Whitby, It. 0 . ... 4 4 4 4 4 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 W h itfe ld , H . [ . . . 4 » 4 Mt 4 4 0 0# | 0 • 0 0 28 W h ittaker ... # • 4 * •* • 4 0 0 k 0 4 0 7 W ilson , C. \ 4 4 # > • •4•\ • 0 4 0 4 4 % 15 W ilson , L . . . . . 4 4 4 %. M{ # 4 0 0 0 4 6 W in ter , C. v ... 4 4 4 ■M 0 4 0 4 4 0 10 W ood , A . H . . 4 * 4 <*• 4 0 0 0 # 4 9 W ood 4 4 4 ' • • * 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 • 1 • 31 W ood liouse , AY. H . 4 4 4 •** 0 4 0 f 0 4 • 6 W ood -S im s , AV.... 4 4 4 4 ^ 9 0 4 t ^0 4 # 0 18 W oo f , W . A . 4 4 4 b 4 0 0 1 # 0 % 35 W oo t ton , J. * ... 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 4 4 •• 37 AVright, C. AV.. ?.. • # 4 0 • 4 4 0 0 4 0 4 26 AVTight, AV. ♦ M t 4 4 * 0 0 0 4 4I« 19 W ya tt , G. N . ... • 4 4 4 4 4 # 0 4 21 Y o u n g ... » ... 4 0 4 ft" * • 0 0 0 4 # # • 0 12 e j l 0 % ^ 0 » • V r K Times Most in not ont. Rnns. an Inns. Aver. 1 * 89 33 •. 11.1 1 177 . 54* 19.6 0 209 . 51 23 .2 * 3 631 - 80 • ■23.10 1 , 321 75 . . 18.15 0 164 86 18.2 0 166. 36 ' . 16.5 4 f | 4 59 12 ‘ 4.11 1 . ' / 213 * 44 >'14.3 0 118 ' 45 13.1 ,1 109 63* ; 8.5 * T 1,331 146* ' 29 .29 - 1 r 1 692 60 19.3 4 J •232 - 66 1 6.8 3 r 674 r 83 28 .2 • 0 v, J 256 4 , 92 21.4 6 * 337 36 *•’ 15.7 h,i 1 f 475 . 83* , • 22.13 89 18 8.1 'J 3 73 21 - 7.3 2 *0 668 80' 21.22 0 79 . 26 .11.2 1 • 339 . 71 : r *24u3 0 —* * lib m # ijL, 70 36 11.4 - 3 34 17 , 7 f . 4.6 1 135 26 16.7 \ n 418 52 , ‘ 20.18 t o 101 62 ' ' 20.1 *i 285 44 ’ 16.13 13 18$ 28* 8.12 8 262 40 9.1 0 311 ’ 61 . 11.26 ;7 226 50* 18.10 A 2 389 112 \ \ 20.18 <*1 184 3 5 * 6.8 • t * # * 0 * --------------------- ~ ~ • * • • • * * » » # b # i i • i ^ » PROFESSIONAL over T HE IMMENSESUPERIORITY OF amateur bowling did not need any proof, but had any been - required, the appended table would have supplied it. Considering what a busy season it was, and how often the wickets were dry and fast, several of the leading professionals can show excellent results for their labours. It is certainly curious that the first places should be held by two of the oldest players now taking part in first-class matches—Alfred Shaw and Emmett. Not only are they among the oldest, but also amon «■ the best and most deserving. Shaw, it will be seen, took 71 ^ * — — • 1 - f / \ 1 . — * V , Avickets at a pnst erf lessthan 10i runs'each, and Emmett 107 wickets for w n m i T 12 runs each. Twice in one match—Nottingham v. Gloucester, less than 1 2 iuns eac^__perform the “ h a t” trick. f v .. Hernres are very nearly as good as Emmett’s, and taking into coi»iderati<m how litue^naa ^ ^ E«glish bowler of tjie year. This> however, might imply some injustice to Peate. The Yorkshire left.